Supreme Court

[warpspeed]

I think that as long as the posts are "news" related and no one adds their opinion to the news, the thread will stay open.

As soon as someone decides to criticize or add a link / copy in someone else who is political then we run the risk of it being closed.

Most of the mods here are good. As long as we behave we can play.

[Heavy Metal Only]

So when is this whole thing going to be decided?

Whenever, if ever, the Supreme Court decides to decide. All this is speculation until the Justices decide to decide or to not decide. Court watchers, pundits, journalists, and ordinary citizens all have an opinion as to what the court will do and what they would like the court to do but it is all worth the electrons it is written with at the moment.

Good thread though....

Your explanation sounds much like the rumor thats not a rumor. It sounds exactily the same in every way only totally different in all aspects.

[clown]

Breaking News >> Supreme Court to Take District of Columbia Handgun Ban Case

[1911user]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=3

Edited November 20, 2007 by 1911user

[chp5]

Game on! Let's hope and pray for the best.

Carlos - based on your read of the Justices, what's your prediction?

[CSEMARTIN]

This is great news! I figured those xxxxxxxx judges would have wussed out on us.

Edited November 20, 2007 by ima45dv8
Keep it clean, folks.

[JThompson]

Well, now it gets interesting.... Let's all hope and pray the High Court keeps faith with the Founding Fathers.

[XRe]

Let's all hope and pray the High Court keeps faith with the Founding Fathers.

+1 to that, man...

[Jim Norman]

The news I heard is that the case won't be heard/decided until May or June of next year. Not sure if I can hold my breath that long.

No matter which way they decide we will likely remain under assault. If they decide in "our" favor, that only very narrow restrictions are allowed, we will have to battle against a continuous stream of narrow restrictins as well as battle to remove all the newly declareed unconstitutinal statues from the books.

If the decide against us, then we will have a flood of very broad far reaching laws proposed and likely in some states passed.

Sadly, I don't think we will ever see the end. It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Jim

[Alan Meek]

Jim,

from my read, they will hear the case in March with a decision by June when their current session ends.

Alan

[Front Man]

Are there any Judges planning to retire before the decision?

FM

[AikiDale]

I have a question which is a bit of a thread drift, but since we don't have any thing else to discuss about this case until the decision next Summer here goes: anyone know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Alan Meek]

I have a question which is a bit of a thread drift, but since we don't have any thing else to discuss about this case until the decision next Summer here goes: anyone know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

a bagiltrizilmillion

[walangkatapat]

Unless something changes only four out of nine will be on our side.

[Heavy Metal Only]

Does anyone believe in prayer?

[JThompson]

http://nra.org/

For some time tables and discussions.

Edited November 21, 2007 by JThompson

[shred]

A while ago somebody said that a SC opinion on the 2nd either way would be good-- if they effectively strike down the worst of the laws (ie: you still can't yell 'Fire' in a theater, or libel people or post copyrighted material or whatever), then gun owners mostly win. If they rule the other way then maybe some of the 50-million-plus gun owners that just don't care today ('cause the 2nd says the gubmit kaint take ther guns') just might wake up and do something.

Then again, McBane says it scares the heck out of him, and I think he knows what he's talking about most of the time, so who knows.

[Carlos]

Game on! Let's hope and pray for the best.

Carlos - based on your read of the Justices, what's your prediction?

I believe it will be a 5/4 split in favor of an individual right.

Why?

Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer would tend to view the constitution as a "living document" which "evolves over time;" thier viewpoint is justified by legal questions such as: "Should cameras be permitted in the courtroom?" The plain answer could not exist in the Constitution due to the new technology that cameras represent. These Justices will tend to be swayed by the arguments of D.C. (et al.) suggesting that even if there were an original right of individuals to own guns, modern public safety should trump that right. Their views in prior decisions would not conflict with the "collectivist" interpretation put forth by D.C.

In contrast, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts reject many of the "living document" theories and interpret the Constitution literaly whenever possible. More importantly, their past opinions indicate that they believe the 2nd Amendment (like all the Amendments) conveys an individual right.

That makes 8. The 9th Justice is: Kennedy. He is the key.

At times, Kennedy's opinions (in my view) reflect libertarian sympathies (nevertheless, there was Kelo - but lets not revisit that issue please). I believe Kennedy will vote with the individual right block because 1) his sympathies and 2) a libertarian attorney (Levy) will couch the case in fundamental libertarian principles which should sway Kennedy.

I am also influenced by what I believe was the Court giving us a glimpse of it's view: I think they showed their hand by the way they chose to present the question. Here is the question they will address (see if you can guess why):

"Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Keep in mind the old legal truism: "No right is absolute."

While a ruling in favor of an individual right would be a bed-rock foundation for our right to own a firearm (apparently to include a handgun), there would likely be some limits on that right - including (in my view) state registration schemes, limits on ownership by felons, minors/infants, mental deficients, aliens, drug users, regulatory limits/bans on imports, and I think the NFA would be likely to be upheld under the decision.

Regards,

Douglas

[SA Friday]

I review this thread about twice a day just to see if Carlos has given more info.... I love it. Clear, concise, educated, and supported information.

[EZ Bagger]

Here is the question they will address (see if you can guess why):

"Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

"...Second Amendment rights of individuals..." Their question states/reiterates what many of us hope to be the preexisting premise. That it is an individual right.

[Catfish]

Carlos, I sure hope you're right.

In the meantime, I think I'm going to go stock up on some things.

[BritinUSA]

But what about this statement ...for private use in their homes?

The wording of 2nd Amendment does not restrict the places where a gun can be carried.

[Brian Payne]

I think it will boil down to how the courts determine the definition of "regulated militia".

In the time of our forefathers, we were all to be considered "militia". Modern society (anti-gun) may try to say that the "militia" has evolved to what is now the National Guard or Military.

Payne

[warpspeed]

But what about this statement ...for private use in their homes?

The wording of 2nd Amendment does not restrict the places where a gun can be carried.

This is in reference to the law being challenged.

[vrod2011]

David Barton wrote a book, or pamplet (http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product13.html) called The Second Amendment. I'm in the middle of it right now, but it shows how, without a doubt, if you look at original intent of the 2nd amendment, it was for the individual's right now self-defense. I think this group of justices, at least the majority, will come to the same conclusion as Barton.